In
this
prior diary, which some might remember caused a mile poo storm, I discussed what I felt were basic misunderstandings we progressives often made when trying to connect with average, everyday Americans. Today, I'm going in a different but somewhat connected angle. This diary, such as it is, attempts to point out a very common and very irritating misunderstanding neo-cons make when trying to connect to the truth when it comes to Iraq.
We've long endured idiotic hyperbole from the White House, all about how "freedom is on the march" in the Mideast. For months, we've listened as conservatives attempted to claim that our actions in Iraq have led to democratic feelings throughout the region. This sort of drivel drove me nuts, but I couldn't put my finger on exactly why.
Then it hit me: it's irritating because it's palpably incorrect. We've been swallowed up by the noise machines and the Where the White Women At news networks and the Swift Boat Veterans for Making Shit Up for so long that being told demonstrably false information seemed par for the course. But today I had some free time due to the impending holiday, and decided to do some research. And you know what I found? Freedom isn't on the march. Freedom isn't even ambling amiably in a general direction. It isn't moseying. It isn't hopscotching. And before you ask, no it isn't skipping, jumping, rolling, strolling or even wandering about in the midst of interpretive dance. Freedom, friends, is still back at the house in its underpants watching re-runs of "Knight Rider."
Here's what I mean.
The White House claimed that elections in Egypt meant that "freedom is on the march." What they didn't mention was that the elections in Egypt were rife with irregularities. By irregularities, I mean beatings. More importantly, the irregularities were all in support of Mubarek's party. Even more importantly, despite irregularies and the whole freedom marching bit, Islamists increased their seats in Parliament by 600%. To paraphrase that great American 21st century philosopher, Xander Harris, "not so much with the freedom." If you read the story, I believe you'll actually find that while the White House was publicly using elections in Egypt as an example of Mideast freedom, administration officials were also quietly stating that the election results were fraudulent. Against the Islamists. Meaning in a free, legitimate election, Islamists would have done better. Better than improving their seats in parliament by 600%.
Palestine, same deal. Bush used local elections in Palestine to show us all that freedom was all about the marching. (Can you tell I'm in the midst of watching Buffy's 7th season again?) But guess who won those elections? Hamas.
Natch. And by fairly large margins. Again, freedom isn't so much marching as it is running away in fear.
Then, of course, we've got the elections in Iraq. They pass over this point in traditional media sources, but the highly controversial results from the December elections gave more than half of Parliament to "Shiite religious parties." Pardon, but that sounds like a euphemism for "Iran-style hyperreligious wackjobs." Could be wrong. Except that I'm probably not.
What this whole "freedom is on the march" twaddle doesn't take into account is that elections are, by their very nature, a symptom of rather than a cause for democracy. Democracy is a belief in the rule of law, of the equal rights of man, of the limited role of government, the accuntability of public officials, and of the dignity inherent in human free will. As a result of those shared values, a democratic society holds elections. Not in order to create those values, but because there's no better method of keeping those values intact. Any government can hold electiions, but if it doesn't respect those fundamental democratic values, it's all just window dressing.
Just because someone stands for election, doesn't make them democrats. Hitler ran for the German presidency. Was "freedom on the march" when he announced his candidacy?
Nearly 3 years into it, and the Iraq War has failed to bring about relevant change in the Mideast. Oh, there's been some elections, with some highly disturbing results. But democracy? Rule of law? Freedom of conscience? Still sitting this one out.
Now, two things can happen from here. One, freedom can all of a sudden pop it's sunny if slightly bloodshot head into the picture, or two, once we leave, Iraq will join all the other false democracies that hold elections but don't hold a single democractic value dear to their hearts. Based on the evidence we've been provided, I have to ask every single thinking voter: which one looks more likely? And which one looks like another fairy tale? And are you willing to bet the life of your neighbor's kid that this isn't all smoke and mirrors?
I can't believe this needs to be said, but the White House is lying to us all.